When your partner has the better view but you see it as "in"

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

Played doubles with a new partner. She was serving.

Opponent's flat groundstroke goes deep and wide to my partner. It was a good shot; partner is toward the middle of the court and can't reach it because of the angle. I turn to look. I see it on the doubles sideline and I give the hand signal for good. She calls it out. I tell her we have to give them the point because we disagree. We give them the point.

This happened twice more in that same (long) service game.

Which made me wonder if I was doing the wrong thing. After all, she is in a much better position to make the call than I am, as I am looking backward and across the line rather than down it. Then again, I genuinely saw the balls as in. Not on the outside of the line, right on the line. But it is her call to make, yet here I am overruling her from an inferior position on the court.

I have seen net players call the deep sidelines and baselines when their partners are better positioned to see the ball, but usually these net players are calling balls out rather than calling them in. As an opponent, I feel these calls by the net player are highly suspect, and more often than not the call goes against us.

So how do the rest of you handle this? If you are the net player, do you just let your partner call those deep and wide balls as out even if you think she might be wrong on the theory that it is her call to make? Should I be keeping my hand signals to myself until the two of us have talked it over?

raiden031 · Jul 31, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
I tell her we have to give them the point because we disagree.

I don't agree with this statement. There are many times where my partner makes an out call and I can't say I 'agree' with the call because I didn't see either way if it was out or in. I am putting faith into my partner making the right call. There is no rule that BOTH partners have to see the ball go out. If you think you see the ball in, that doesn't mean your partner isn't 100% sure it was out. Its possible you are wrong. I would say in this scenario that you should defer to your partner and let the out call stand, unless you are absolutely certain your partner made a bad call. But if you let the out call stand, you must defer quickly and if it takes too long to decide, then give the point to your opponent.

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

Raiden, what I mean is that if one partner signals good and the other signals in, that is a disagreement and the team *must* give the point to the other team per the Code. They can't talk it over and decide the ball was out.

I guess the only exception would be if I told the other team I got my hand signals confused and really meant to signal out, but of course that wasn't the case here.

And to be clear, if I didn't see the ball or was unsure, I would of course defer to my partner. In this case, I did see the ball clearly.

Joeyg · Jul 31, 2008

Raiden: You are wrong here. If one partner calls it good and the other out, the rules state that there is confusion and that the call goes to your opponent. Always!

Deleted member 23235 · Jul 31, 2008

When I'm returning against big servers (eg. 100+) on hard courts, I have a tendency to play alot of long balls. Unless I'm absolutely certain I saw the ball in, I will always defer to my partner. I think in this case it sounds like (from the way you described it) you weren't sure, but you took the singles good sportsman mindset, and called a ball good that you weren't sure of. In doubles you have the benefit of deferring to your partner (obviously if neither of you are sure, the call is in). As a receiving partner, particularly when playing with new folks, I try to be very quick about my call (presuming I'm standing on the service line, I probably have the better vantage for long balls), so I don't give my partner a chance to "call it good because they weren't sure". As a returner, if my partner is not calling the ball quick enough, and I'm finding myself unsure of calls, I'll ask them explicitly to help me watch the long service call.

I agree with the above posters if you're SURE you saw it in, and your partner was SURE (s)he saw it out, point goes to the other team.

flash9 · Jul 31, 2008

Must Discuss This Beforehand!

If you plan to be "helping" your partner with these calls, you better have a discussion with them before the match begins explaining your position that if either of you see the ball as IN versus the other seeing it as OUT then you both must agree that it is your (as in both of you) intention to award the point to your opponents. I have seen my share of arguments between partners when one overrules the other. It can be uglier then when the disagreements on line calls are with a player on the other side of the net.
:twisted:
Best to discuss it before hand and ensure your partner will be OK with this policy!

I have even had this discussion with players I am playing with, in close proximity to our competitors so that they hear the discussion, and I have had a few then say to their partners that this is also how they want to play as well.

OrangePower · Jul 31, 2008

In the OP situation, if you clearly saw the ball out, you call it as such. You lose the point. End of story. Anything else is just dishonest.

On the other hand, if you suspect there's a chance it might have been out but you didn't see it clearly, and your partner is better positioned to see it, then you should defer to your partner's call.

darkhorse · Jul 31, 2008

If your partner has a better view, I'd say it's their call. I've had some partners ask me if a serve was wide on the far sideline, and I always say "It's your call" unless it's real obvious, but if its obvious there usually isn't a question. But if I can't tell and my partner can't tell, it's good.

You were right, though, if there is a disagreement between partners the ball has to be called good.

Nellie · Jul 31, 2008

Remember the end goal is to get the call right, not about following the proper procedure/etiquette. If your partner is wrong, correct him/her. I am sure that you are an honest and fair person, and the other team should respect your call, as should your partner. If you have any doubt, then the ball is good.

I had a situation once where my partner got ticked off because he called ball out and I was certain it was in the court because I had the better view. In that case, we could not agree, so the ball was called in. I don't play with that guy anymore.

Steady Eddy · Jul 31, 2008

If you give a 'split decision' it's good. Like you said. That's the rule, you can't say, "Well, let's call it out." But maybe you don't want to signal good. I mean, if you say nothing, that's implies good, but you haven't said "good". So doing it this way, if you thought good, but your partner says, "out", all your opponents see is your partner calling "out". No split. Then if you felt sure that it was on the line, you could talk to your partner. But if you've already signaled 'good', that's another story. There's no going back from there.

Xisbum · Jul 31, 2008

flash9 said:
If you plan to be "helping" your partner with these calls, you better have a discussion with them before the match begins explaining your position that if either of you see the ball as IN versus the other seeing it as OUT then you both must agree that it is your (as in both of you) intention to award the point to your opponents. I have seen my share of arguments between partners when one overrules the other. It can be uglier then when the disagreements on line calls are with a player on the other side of the net.
:twisted:
Best to discuss it before hand and ensure your partner will be OK with this policy!

I have even had this discussion with players I am playing with, close enough to our competitors so that they hear the discussion, and I have had a few then say to their partners that this is also how they want to play as well.

Right on. I always tell partners that if I am looking across a line, I cannot and will not confirm or overrule a close call because that view is always skewed. It has to be the other person's call. The only exception I would make on this call would be if the ball is way, way inside the line - like a foot. So, partner, it's your call - you have to make it and you have to make it decisively.

Just how I would handle it, of course.

consistency wins · Jul 31, 2008

You've already received a ton of info here, but I'll agree with the fact that if two partners cannot agree or decide quickly without a conversation about the call--the point is awarded to the other side of the net.

blakesq · Jul 31, 2008

I agree 100% with orangepower.

Many times I am unsure of a call, and if I am playing singles I will play it "in", according to the rules. However, in doubles, if i am unsure of a call, I will give my partner a questioning look, or I will simply say "I didn't see it" to my partner, and if my partner saw it out, he should call it "out", if he saw it in, or isn't sure it is in, then we call it "in".

If we are in the middle of the point, and either my partner or I hit a ball that is out, but the hitter is unable to call it out (because he or she is unsure), then if the non-hitting partner clearly saw it out, he should call it out.

A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

OrangePower said:
In the OP situation, if you clearly saw the ball out, you call it as such. You lose the point. End of story. Anything else is just dishonest.

On the other hand, if you suspect there's a chance it might have been out but you didn't see it clearly, and your partner is better positioned to see it, then you should defer to your partner's call.

LawnChairGeneral · Jul 31, 2008

blakesq said:
A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

The point should be over as soon as anyone calls it out. You disagree on the call and therefore lose the point.

I do not to call lines that my partner has a better angle on... especially if I am at the net and the call is at the baseline.

If you meet for a discussion about a call, then there is obviously doubt between you and your partner and the call must be good. Furthermore, any delay in the call puts doubt in your opponents mind.

If I am not in a position to make the call and am asked for clarification by our opponents I always say, "I agree with my partner." Usually ends all discussion right there.

OrangePower · Jul 31, 2008

blakesq said:
A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

Your opponents are entitled to the point. As soon as your partner calls it out and your opponents hear/see the call made, they potentially stop playing the point. To subsequently continue the point disadvantages them. Therefore the point is technically conceded to them.

However, in this situation, I've had opponents graciously decline the point and suggest that a let be played instead. If they were not at an advantage during the point I'll agree and give them props for good sportsmanship. When the situation is reversed I usually do the same - I'll offer to play a let even though I can technically claim the point.

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

Steady Eddy said:
If you give a 'split decision' it's good. Like you said. That's the rule, you can't say, "Well, let's call it out." But maybe you don't want to signal good. I mean, if you say nothing, that's implies good, but you haven't said "good". So doing it this way, if you thought good, but your partner says, "out", all your opponents see is your partner calling "out". No split. Then if you felt sure that it was on the line, you could talk to your partner. But if you've already signaled 'good', that's another story. There's no going back from there.

Well, yeah. I mean, if the goal was to call as many close balls in our favor as possible, then neither of us should ever give a "good" hand signal. That reserves to us the ability to talk it over, and our opponents will not know there is a disagreement.

This strikes me as Too Cute By Half. I mean, as I said, I saw the ball *on the line.* Not maybe on the line. I was actually pretty surprised that she saw it out. Had it been close, I would have stood there hoping she got a good look at it and deferred to her call, which is frequently what happens.

I was thinking on it more, and the "good" hand signal in this situation in doubles really changes the dynamic, doesn't it? Say I hadn't signaled "good" but still saw the ball as squarely on the line. Partner calls it out. I then have to walk over, talk with her, and then get her to overrule herself or overrule her if she won't do it. Yuk. This is the thing that sets people off and leads to fights between partners. But if I give that "good" hand signal, then I get to hide behind the "disagreement between partners" rule and say "Ah, well, they saw me give the signal, so we have to give it to them." Partner sees it not as a direct overrule or insinuation that they are blind, but sees it as my making a mistake. Better, perhaps?

But yeah, maybe I should have discussed it with her. I don't discuss these things with people beforehand, preferring instead to believe everyone has read and understands the Code. This works fine. But after the first time with this lady, in addition to explaining the rule on disagreements, we should have gone over this. After all, if she didn't know the Code provision about disagreements, maybe she didn't know some other things too.

BTW, my statement that disagreeing partners "must" award the point to the opponent wasn't entirely accurate either. There is one more option. My partner and I can disagree, but then we can ask the opponents for help. If they saw it out, they are supposed to tell us that and give us the point. If they saw it in or didn't see it, we have to give them the point. Right?

I didn't think to do that.

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

blakesq said:
I agree 100% with orangepower.
A sticky situation occurs, if during the point, one guy sees it out, one sees it in, and the ball is still in play...then what happens? For instance, I hit the ball, and it looks in to me, my partner sees it out and yells "out", but I say "no, its in"...do we lose the point if it bothers the opponents or do we play a let? I always get confused on this particular issue.

Code:

"12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves."

So no, you don't automatically lose the point. If you want to surrender the point for some sportsmanship reason, you are free to do so.

Me, I don't surrender the point. I play by the Code and play a let if the Code allows. Botched calls are part of the game and happen to everyone. Play a let if the Code allows (or grant a let to your opponents if they botched it) and be more careful next time.

OrangePower · Jul 31, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
Code:

"12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves."

So no, you don't automatically lose the point. If you want to surrender the point for some sportsmanship reason, you are free to do so.

Me, I don't surrender the point. I play by the Code and play a let if the Code allows. Botched calls are part of the game and happen to everyone. Play a let if the Code allows (or grant a let to your opponents if they botched it) and be more careful next time.

Well then I stand corrected - the Code is after all the code.

However in this case I still believe that the Code is not fair. For example Cindy, say we are playing singles, on your serve. We are in a point and I have you scrambling from side to side. You are getting the balls back and they are not "weak sitters" in the sense that they are not neccessarily automatic put-aways, but I am able to stand in the middle of the court just inside the baseline and easily run you around. Clearly I am in control of the point and am much more likely than not to win the point. You call a ball out and then change your mind. If we play a let, you get to start the point again by serving, which actually gives you an advantage in the point. So basically your botched call turns the point from one which I am likely to win to one which you are likely to win. Just doesn't seem fair, does it?

Or perhaps it's all in the definition of "weak sitter"... to me, any ball that I'm able to get my racquet on I think of as a weak sitter (hence my 3-1 errors to winners margin)

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

OrangePower said:
Well then I stand corrected - the Code is after all the code.

However in this case I still believe that the Code is not fair. For example Cindy, say we are playing singles, on your serve. We are in a point and I have you scrambling from side to side. You are getting the balls back and they are not "weak sitters" in the sense that they are not neccessarily automatic put-aways, but I am able to stand in the middle of the court just inside the baseline and easily run you around. Clearly I am in control of the point and am much more likely than not to win the point. You call a ball out and then change your mind. If we play a let, you get to start the point again by serving, which actually gives you an advantage in the point. So basically your botched call turns the point from one which I am likely to win to one which you are likely to win. Just doesn't seem fair, does it?

Or perhaps it's all in the definition of "weak sitter"... to me, any ball that I'm able to get my racquet on I think of as a weak sitter (hence my 3-1 errors to winners margin)

Yes, you're correct. This Code provision -- like any other -- has the potential to yield an unfair result in some situations.

I'm OK with that, even in the situation you describe. The reason is that even the pros must deal with botched line calls (reversed by the linesperson, chair or instant replay) that cost them a competitive advantage. We don't see their opponents giving them the point, and we don't see the victim throwing a huge tantrum. Everyone understands this happens, nothing can be done for it, and over time it will all even out.

So no, I wouldn't award you the point in the scenario you describe, although I would apologize profusely for my mistake. I would play to the Code, and I wouldn't expect you to toss points to me that I didn't earn under the Code.

Deleted member 23235 · Jul 31, 2008

OrangePower said:
Or perhaps it's all in the definition of "weak sitter"...

The definition of "weak sitter" is too open to interpretation... if I call a ball out (eg. on a first serve) then realize it was good, I'll give my opponent the point. Seems like the code could be abused... eg. 4-4 30-30, keep calling big close serves out to rattle your opponent (eg. play a let as you get the ball back, hope they get rattled, and now take a look at a second serve).

In reality I probably never run into this much anymore because I presume the serve is in (mentally I'm thinking I want the first serve to be in, so I'm better prepared to return it), but I might (after returning) it, realize it was out and call it as such.

Any time I've made a mistake calling an "in" ball "out", it was probably because I was hoping the first serve would go out, in which case I deserved to lose anyway (eg. leaving results to fate vs. taking control of my destiny).

OrangePower · Jul 31, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
Yes, you're correct. This Code provision -- like any other -- has the potential to yield an unfair result in some situations.

True, there are many provisions that can yield an unfair result in a minority of situations, but that we accept because they work in most cases and seem to be the best overall compromise. In this particular case however, I don't see why the rule is not simply "you call a good ball out, you lose the point". I don't see any case where this is not 100% fair - the only person with the potential to be penalized is the person making the bad call in the first place.

Just because the Code is the code does not mean it is perfect or does not have potential for improvement - but granted, there can be no argument against someone following it to the letter.

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

Fair enough, Orange One. If I might be allowed to speculate . . .

I would guess that the reason the Code is written this way is because the natural reaction when you blow a line call is embarrassment. You made a mistake, right out in public. There are *a lot* of people who have a very hard time admitting when they make a mistake. They are consumed with saving face.

I think the drafters of the Code wanted to give these people an out and encourage them to correct themselves. These people can know they won't be penalized for doing the honorable thing, which makes them more likely to Step Up.

The Weak Sitter provision seems designed to give players something to argue about.

My sister was playing a 3.0 tournament singles match some years back when this Code provision came up. Late in third set tiebreak. She miscalled the service line and corrected her out call. She said they should play a let. Her opponents said the point was theirs. They discussed, with her pointing out that her partner had played the ball crosscourt to the baseline. The argument continued.

Roving official was summoned. Roving official listened to these undisputed facts and ruled: Point to the opponent because my sister caused the problem by making the mistake. When confronted with the rule, which my sister had pulled from her bag, the roving official decided that the return "must have been a weak sitter." My sister completely lost it -- geez, even roving officials don't know the rules -- and they went on to lose the tiebreak.

She's still mad. She wants her trophy!

Crusher10s · Jul 31, 2008

You do realize that the "Out Calls Corrected" section of The Code you quoted back on page one is dealing with an opponent's SERVE only right?

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

Crusher10s said:
You do realize that the "Out Calls Corrected" section of The Code you quoted back on page one is dealing with an opponent's SERVE only right?

No, it isn't. It is under the section called "Making Calls" which also addresses things like disagreements between partners, giving benefit of the doubt and suchlike.

Dang, Crusher. You *scared* me there. I thought I had been doing it wrong all this time.

blakesq · Jul 31, 2008

Why are you calling balls "good" or giving hand signals indicating "good"? You are only supposed to call balls "out", if you don't call them out they are considered "in". Now, if your partner is closer to the ball, it seems to me she has a better view of it (especially since she was unable to get to it, and swing at it), and if she calls it out I would give her the benefit of the doubt, unless you are sure it was in, then in that case you would have to overrule her.

The thing about line calls is that reasonable people can differ on whether a ball is in or out. Thus, if the ball is close but I "think" it is in (but am not sure), but my partner is closer to the ball and calls it out, I would defer to my partner. Thats what I think you should have done.

Cindysphinx said:
Played doubles with a new partner. She was serving.

Opponent's flat groundstroke goes deep and wide to my partner. It was a good shot; partner is toward the middle of the court and can't reach it because of the angle. I turn to look. I see it on the doubles sideline and I give the hand signal for good. She calls it out. I tell her we have to give them the point because we disagree. We give them the point.

This happened twice more in that same (long) service game.

Which made me wonder if I was doing the wrong thing. After all, she is in a much better position to make the call than I am, as I am looking backward and across the line rather than down it. Then again, I genuinely saw the balls as in. Not on the outside of the line, right on the line. But it is her call to make, yet here I am overruling her from an inferior position on the court.

I have seen net players call the deep sidelines and baselines when their partners are better positioned to see the ball, but usually these net players are calling balls out rather than calling them in. As an opponent, I feel these calls by the net player are highly suspect, and more often than not the call goes against us.

So how do the rest of you handle this? If you are the net player, do you just let your partner call those deep and wide balls as out even if you think she might be wrong on the theory that it is her call to make? Should I be keeping my hand signals to myself until the two of us have talked it over?

robby c · Jul 31, 2008

In a Dbls match we were receiving; two points in a row the opponents hard-hit shot landed just behind the baseline at the center serve mark. Both times the return player called out,and the net player called good.
It taught me that day that the closer player does indeed have a clearer view.
Unless you are convinced your partner missed the call ; defer. Don't call the far line for your partner.
Robby C

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

blakesq said:
Why are you calling balls "good" or giving hand signals indicating "good"? You are only supposed to call balls "out", if you don't call them out they are considered "in". Now, if your partner is closer to the ball, it seems to me she has a better view of it (especially since she was unable to get to it, and swing at it), and if she calls it out I would give her the benefit of the doubt, unless you are sure it was in, then in that case you would have to overrule her.

The thing about line calls is that reasonable people can differ on whether a ball is in or out. Thus, if the ball is close but I "think" it is in (but am not sure), but my partner is closer to the ball and calls it out, I would defer to my partner. Thats what I think you should have done.

But Blake . . . I was sure it was on the line. Sure enough to give an immediate hand signal. Which leads us in a big circle to whether it is better to say nothing and overrule, or to lose the point to "disagreement between partners."

Regarding giving my partner the benefit of the doubt . . . the Code says I am to give my *opponents* the benefit of the doubt. The only doubt I had was whether this friend of mine has been hooking people on line calls all over the place, 'cause I don't know how she could have thought those balls were out, not once but three times.

But yes, I do use the hand signal for "good" quite a lot. I think it helps avoid scoring disputes, is generally good communication in noisy facilities, and is a courteous thing to do. Lots of people do not use that signal, which is fine. I appreciate it when my opponents use the "good" signal.

We're playing again tonight. Let's see what happens . . .

Steady Eddy · Jul 31, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
Well, yeah. I mean, if the goal was to call as many close balls in our favor as possible, then neither of us should ever give a "good" hand signal. That reserves to us the ability to talk it over, and our opponents will not know there is a disagreement.

This strikes me as Too Cute By Half. I mean, as I said, I saw the ball *on the line.* Not maybe on the line. I was actually pretty surprised that she saw it out. Had it been close, I would have stood there hoping she got a good look at it and deferred to her call, which is frequently what happens.

If they saw it out, they are supposed to tell us that and give us the point. If they saw it in or didn't see it, we have to give them the point. Right?

Oops. I didn't mean to sound like I was giving ways of circumventing the rules. Just that it occurred to me that I'm not often in that situation, and that's probably because I don't often say "in" or "good", 'cause saying nothing is the same as "in" or "good". But my style does get me into the problem you described, i.e. a partner calling a good shout "out".

My advice (and this is going against everything I have read) is; support your partner. One day I joined 3 guys so we'd have 4 for doubles. They lobbed over the baseline, I said, "out". My 'partner' casually picked up the ball, and as he returned it said, "Jim, the ball was good" They're friends, I'm an outsider, (I knew it was out, also), and I couldn't have looked worse than if I'd have been caught stealing out of their tennis bag! That ruined the experience, and I'm always afraid of that happening again. I wouldn't do that to a partner I thought was a decent human being. These considerations far transcend the value of winning a point, IMO.

tbini87 · Jul 31, 2008

when i am at the net in doubles i am looking at my opponents across the net, and not where their ball is landing. so i let my partner handle all those calls, and we never disagree. it would seem odd to me if a net person kept making calls during the match.

baek57 · Jul 31, 2008

i really think you should be facing forward and let your partner make the call instead of turning your head to watch the ball and your partner.

cak · Jul 31, 2008

I defer to my partner when they have a better view of the ball.

I am lucky enough to be able to attend a few pro tournaments a year that utilize the "shot spot" technology. Here I am, sitting in the stands in what I consider good seats, and me, and heck, my whole section will be absolutely sure a line call made by the linesmen is wrong and shot spot will show they are right. Not to say the linesmen are always right, but they are right much more often than the folks in the stands are. It made me realize that sometimes my glancing angle view will show balls in that aren't even close. We got to test that theory a few times when we played right after the courts were washed, and we could check marks. I couldn't tell you how often the farther away player was wrong. Things look closer to the line, or even sometimes on the line to the person across the court when they are 3 inches out So if my partner is closer, they probably have a better view, and from where I'm standing I my eyes could be deceived. I let them make the call.

Crusher10s · Jul 31, 2008

"12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves."

-----------

^^^^^^This entire section is in reference to a SERVE that an opponent originally called OUT but then realized the SERVE was GOOD and how to handle the situation.

If the return was a weak sitter or out or in the net then the point is automatically given to the server. If the return was a good return then the server gets to start over with 2 serves.

blakesq · Jul 31, 2008

"This entire section is in reference to a SERVE that an opponent originally called OUT but then realized the SERVE was GOOD and how to handle the situation."

No its not. The whole section is titled "Principles", and it discusses the principles of tennis, not just the serve. The sub-section is titled "Making Calls". The first point under this subsection is: "5. Player makes calls on own side of the net. A player calls all shots landing on, or aimed at, the player’s side of the net." This is not about the serve.

Why do you think point 12, quoted below, is only about the serve?

Crusher10s said:
"12. Out calls corrected. If a player mistakenly calls a ball “out” and then
realizes it was good, the point shall be replayed if the player returned the ball
within the proper court. Nonetheless, if the player’s return of the ball results
in a “weak sitter,” the player should give the opponent the point. If the player
failed to make the return, the opponent wins the point. If the mistake was
made on the second serve, the server is entitled to two serves."

-----------

^^^^^^This entire section is in reference to a SERVE that an opponent originally called OUT but then realized the SERVE was GOOD and how to handle the situation.

If the return was a weak sitter or out or in the net then the point is automatically given to the server. If the return was a good return then the server gets to start over with 2 serves.

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

This stuff is endlessly fascinating to me. It never occurred to me that anyone could possibly interpret Code Provision 12 as applying only to serves.

Crusher, I see your point, but I still disagree, for two reasons.

1. Rule 12 is in a section of the Code that deals with "Making Calls." The very next section is called "Serving." If Rule 12 dealt only with serves, it would be in the Serve Section like all the other things that deal only with serving, which is the following section. Indeed, the "Serving" section contains other rules about making calls that *do* pertain only to serving (Rule 25 and Rule 26, on "Service Calls In Doubles" and "Service Calls By Serving Team.")

2. In the very first sentence, Rule 12 talks about calling a "ball" out. It does not refer to calling a "serve" out. That suggests it applies to any ball, not just serves.

Hey, that's just my interpretation. Maybe someone knows of an official actual ruling or whatever on how this rule should be viewed. I've never heard anyone claim any of the provisions in "Making Calls" apply just to serves, but maybe that's just me. If I'm doing it wrong, I would surely want to know.

You know, it would be kind of weird not to apply Rule 12 to exchanges during a point, though. Say my partner calls a ball "out" in the middle of the point. I see it in and keep playing. Have the opponents been hindered? Well, the talking didn't occur while the shot was on the way to them, so it isn't technically a hindrance. In that case, if my my shot landed in, I would approach the net and we'd play a let. Same result if my opponents make the mistake. I've never had anyone say the rule only applies to serves. As a matter of logic, I don't see why it would.

Interesting point, Crusher.

Oh, and I played with this lady again today, both with her and against her. Her line calling was quite totally appropriate. In fact, we got on well together. Which means yesterday was a fluke, I guess. I see some combo matches in our future.

raiden031 · Jul 31, 2008

Joeyg said:
Raiden: You are wrong here. If one partner calls it good and the other out, the rules state that there is confusion and that the call goes to your opponent. Always!

Here is from the code:

14. Partners' disagreement on calls. If a player and his partner disagree about whether their opponents' ball was out, they shall call it good. It is more important to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt than to avoid possibly hurting your partner's feelings by not overruling. The tactful way to achieve the desired result is to tell your partner quietly that he has made a mistake and then let him overrule himself. If a call is changed from out to good, the point is replayed only if the out ball was put back in play.

There is no difference between making no call and calling it good, because both result in the same outcome. Accidentally making a good call because you didn't see it well enough to make an OUT call is not disagreeing with your partner. So I don't think you are required to overrule your partner when you are unsure of the call and your partner is 100% sure it is out.

Cindysphinx · Jul 31, 2008

raiden031 said:
There is no difference between making no call and calling it good, because both result in the same outcome. Accidentally making a good call because you didn't see it well enough to make an OUT call is not disagreeing with your partner. So I don't think you are required to overrule your partner when you are unsure of the call and your partner is 100% sure it is out.

Raiden, I totally lost you there with the bold bit.

There is no such thing as "accidentally making a good call" unless you just mix up your hand signals for a nanosecond. You call the ball good and you are stuck with that. Making a change would be an expression of doubt, and we all know what that means.

I think that if you are unsure of the call (because you didn't get a good look at it and therefore have no opinion) but your partner says it was out, then the ball is out. There is nothing that requires a player to have an opinion on whether a ball was in or out. So that part of your argument is correct. You can stand on your partner's call if you didn't see the ball.

The rule about disagreements deals with situations where there is, you know, a disagreement. If you make a good hand signal, the opponents will be tipped off that you thought the ball was good. Your goose is cooked, as you'd look like quite the heel if you said you were reversing your good call to no call. That's the easy case, and I have taken points from people when one hand shoots down for good and one finger gets waved for out.

If you make no hand signal but saw the ball clearly in and know your partner is wrong, you are honor-bound to correct your partner. In that case, there is a disagreement, and point goes to the opponent, IMHO.

tbini87 · Jul 31, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
Raiden, I totally lost you there with the bold bit. There is no such thing as "accidentally making a good call" unless you just mix up your hand signals for a nanosecond. You call the ball good and you are stuck with that. Making a change would be an expression of doubt, and we all know what that means.

I think that if you are unsure of the call (because you didn't get a good look at it and therefore have no opinion) but your partner says it was out, then the ball is out. There is nothing that requires a player to have an opinion on whether a ball was in or out. So that part of your argument is correct. You can stand on your partner's call if you didn't see the ball.

The rule about disagreements deals with situations where there is, you know, a disagreement. If you make a good hand signal, the opponents will be tipped off that you thought the ball was good. Your goose is cooked, as you'd look like quite the heel if you said you were reversing your good call to no call. That's the easy case, and I have taken points from people when one hand shoots down for good and one finger gets waved for out.

If you make no hand signal but saw the ball clearly in and know your partner is wrong, you are honor-bound to correct your partner. In that case, there is a disagreement, and point goes to the opponent, IMHO.

cindy, do you try to watch as many balls as possible and make calls on them? it seems to me like you should not make any calls until your partner makes a call you KNOW was completely wrong. also, do you usually use a hand gesture for a good ball by your opponent. i do on occasion when it is close, but not very often. i personally think it is easiest to let your partner let her call her balls, and you focus on your opponents, and vice versa. if for some reason you see the ball clearly and need to overrule then fine, but hopefully that is a small percentage of the time (unless you know your partner calls bad lines of course).

Cindysphinx · Aug 1, 2008

I dunno, tbini. I see what I see, I call what I see. If I'm looking, I'm more likely to see.

It seems to me that the most important thing is accuracy. If I see it in, I will call it in.

I've played a fair amount of tennis, and this is the first time I have had this issue come up repeatedly. It didn't recur the second time we played. In all instances, we got the calls right. I'm OK with that.

raiden031 · Aug 1, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
Raiden, I totally lost you there with the bold bit. There is no such thing as "accidentally making a good call" unless you just mix up your hand signals for a nanosecond. You call the ball good and you are stuck with that. Making a change would be an expression of doubt, and we all know what that means.

Since signalling balls as good is not a rule and not even mentioned in the section I pasted, I don't think people should be held by those as evidence of disagreement between partners. This being because a signal of good can also mean that the player did not see where the ball landed and doesn't want to cheat their opponents.

The only time I agree that the opponent gets the point is if the partners show clear disagreement through dialogue. Where one actually believes it was good and the other believes it was out.

Cindysphinx · Aug 1, 2008

Boy, Raiden. If you and I were playing and you signaled good and then tried to take it back, we'd have a real problem. Every time I see it, I stroll toward the net. By the time I get there, I expect my opponents to have given me the point. If they don't, I say something like, "I'm sorry, but Becky saw it good and Susie called it out, so it's our point." Their only escape is for Becky to tell a bald-faced lie, and I haven't met anyone yet who is willing to do it.

It's all academic anyway, though. If you are sure you saw it good but didn't use a hand signal, you'd own up to that and overrule your partner. That's true of everyone here, right?

tfm1973 · Aug 1, 2008

if i hit a shot and my opponents call it OUT or if they call it IN -- doesn't matter. heck it's their call. and yes if they conflict -- tie goes to me.

what infuriates me is when they don't make ANY call. you sit there for a couple of seconds or sometimes til they serve and you're like -- WELL WAS IT IN?! I CAN'T READ YOUR MIND!

even worse if they huddle together and try to discuss how to cheat me out of a point. LOL.

i need to drink less coffee.

tbini87 · Aug 1, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
I dunno, tbini. I see what I see, I call what I see. If I'm looking, I'm more likely to see.

It seems to me that the most important thing is accuracy. If I see it in, I will call it in.

I've played a fair amount of tennis, and this is the first time I have had this issue come up repeatedly. It didn't recur the second time we played. In all instances, we got the calls right. I'm OK with that.

that makes sense that you see what you see, and call it! i also agree that accuracy should come first. however, your posts make it seem as if you are trying to watch the ball all the time, so that you can make a call. at some point i would have a problem with a partner who didn't let me make my calls. thats fine if they see it, but i see it too, so let me make the call. i would also want my partner more worried about being involved in the point and not worried about making my calls, they usually have enough other stuff to worry about. that is all.

tbini87 · Aug 1, 2008

tfm1973 said:
if i hit a shot and my opponents call it OUT or if they call it IN -- doesn't matter. heck it's their call. and yes if they conflict -- tie goes to me.

what infuriates me is when they don't make ANY call. you sit there for a couple of seconds or sometimes til they serve and you're like -- WELL WAS IT IN?! I CAN'T READ YOUR MIND!

even worse if they huddle together and try to discuss how to cheat me out of a point. LOL.

i need to drink less coffee.

i don't get the first part, what if they call it out but you saw it clearly in?

i totally agree with the second part... if they don't make a call i assume it was in. if they don't make a call, i will ask "that shot was in right?". if they say no, i will let them know that they need to make an out call then, because no call in my book means the ball was good.

and there is no way i am letting people huddle up to make a call! i can't believe people actually do that!

Cindysphinx · Aug 1, 2008

tbini87 said:
that makes sense that you see what you see, and call it! i also agree that accuracy should come first. however, your posts make it seem as if you are trying to watch the ball all the time, so that you can make a call. at some point i would have a problem with a partner who didn't let me make my calls. thats fine if they see it, but i see it too, so let me make the call. i would also want my partner more worried about being involved in the point and not worried about making my calls, they usually have enough other stuff to worry about. that is all.

Nah, I'm not watching the ball all the time so I can make a call. That would get me beaned in the back of the head a whole lot, huh?

I might glance toward my partner as the ball travels toward her at the baseline, sometimes. I am hoping to be aware of what is happening on the court at all times, and glancing back or over at her is helpful in some circumstances.

If my partner and I are beaten, I watch where the ball lands so I can help call it, no matter our respective positions on the court. And when the situation is reversed (I am the one struggling to make the shot), I appreciate it when my net partner pays attention to where the ball bounces in case I can't see it.

And yes, people do the "huddle" thing TFM described. It's annoying.

Steady Eddy · Aug 1, 2008

Server's Surprise

tfm1973 said:
what infuriates me is when they don't make ANY call. you sit there for a couple of seconds or sometimes til they serve and you're like -- WELL WAS IT IN?! I CAN'T READ YOUR MIND!

I've given a name for this in the hope that the name might call attention to the method. Sometimes, I think they'd like to call it out, but they've waited too long. It would look real weird to wait 5 seconds and then say, "out". But, if they're the serving team, this thought occurs to them, they don't have to make a call. They'll just add this point to the score when they announce it. Thus, I dub this "server's surprise". I can feel when it's about to happen, so often I'll say, "Score?". That nips it in the bud. But if they say something like "15-30", (when it's really love-40), then I'll interupt to say isn't it love-40. Then they'll say, "We won that point." So I'll say, "Oh, I never heard a call." They still get the point this way, but it will keep them from doing it again. Let's stop "server's surprise".

blakesq · Aug 1, 2008

Cindy, what if you are that net, and your partner is at the baseline, and the ball lands near the baseline, and your partner is unable to get to the ball. If your partner clearly sees it "out", and you clearly see it "in" (it looks like it caught the edge of the line to you, but remember you are about 35 feet away from the ball, and your partner is about 4 feet away), are you going to call it "in"? Don't you think your partner has a better view of the ball? Could it be possible that even though you think it is in, that since you are 35 feet away, you may be wrong, and your partner may be right?

I think in the above case, you have to let your partner make the call. And if you pipe up and make a signal that it was "in", then you have lost the point based on your calling the ball in from 35 feet away, effectively overruling your partner who is 4 feet away.

Cindysphinx said:
If my partner and I are beaten, I watch where the ball lands so I can help call it, no matter our respective positions on the court. And when the situation is reversed (I am the one struggling to make the shot), I appreciate it when my net partner pays attention to where the ball bounces in case I can't see it.

Cindysphinx · Aug 1, 2008

blakesq said:
Cindy, what if you are that net, and your partner is at the baseline, and the ball lands near the baseline, and your partner is unable to get to the ball. If your partner clearly sees it "out", and you clearly see it "in" (it looks like it caught the edge of the line to you, but remember you are about 35 feet away from the ball, and your partner is about 4 feet away), are you going to call it "in"? Don't you think your partner has a better view of the ball? Could it be possible that even though you think it is in, that since you are 35 feet away, you may be wrong, and your partner may be right?

I think in the above case, you have to let your partner make the call. And if you pipe up and make a signal that it was "in", then you have lost the point based on your calling the ball in from 35 feet away, effectively overruling your partner who is 4 feet away.

Blake, for me to call a ball in when my partner is closer, I have to be certain it was in. Most times, I do not know, and clipping the outside of the line would be the sort of thing I couldn't see from far away. That seems to be the disconnect you and I are having. It *is* possible to be certain and correct on a good call even if your partner is closer.

I say anyone who says it is always impossible to be certain a baseline ball was in from a position at the net isn't trying hard enough. If such a ball bounces inside the baseline, the net player can sometimes be certain it was in. Being certain it was out is much tougher, because it is hard to exclude the possibility that it caught a bit of the outside line.

I think the Code supports me on this. The Code cautions that players have to be crazy careful about calling balls out when they are in a bad position (looking across a line, far away). But even then, the Code knows it is not impossible for a player in a disadvantageous position to make a line call with certainty and accurately. The Code says any player can call a ball out the player clearly sees as out.

Now, I do not go around calling balls out from a disadvantageous position. That's not cool because you're not giving benefit of the doubt to the opponent, and it's a good way to get into a fight. But if I am certain a ball is in, I will call it in.

As for my partner . . . well, some people are so into the moment that they "wish" a ball out. Some people are just not so hot at calling lines for whatever reason. And some people just . . . well, it's just not in their nature to give the benefit of the doubt like they should, right? Those people must be out there, as people at TW complain about them constantly!

Cindysphinx · Aug 1, 2008

Steady Eddy said:
I've given a name for this in the hope that the name might call attention to the method.

Outstanding!

Let's stop "server's surprise".

Yes, let's.

You know, when I play clinics, the pros will admonish people who ask "Was that out (or in)?" The prevailing wisdom seems to be that a failure to make a call means the ball was good, so you shouldn't ask, you should just assume. But this approach doesn't prevent Server's Surprise, does it?

Me, I ask for the call. Right away. I can't help it. I hate not knowing the score, and I can't mentally prepare for the next point unless I know what happened with the last.

blakesq · Aug 1, 2008

I wonder Cindy, if you are certain that a ball is in, and your partner is certain it is out, who is correct? Is there any chance, that if you are certain a ball hit the line, that you may be wrong? Any chance at all? Does that chance go up if your partner is certain the ball is out?

Me, I make the best call I can. But if the ball looks on the line to me, it may look 1/2 inch out to my opponent. REasonable people can disagree on call.

The scenario I gave you above (where you are at the net, and your partner is at the baseline), is one reason I think you shouldn't call balls "in", especially if your partner has a better view of the ball, because even though you may be "certain", a reasonable person can realize that she can still be wrong, especially if she is 30 feet away from the ball.

Cindysphinx said:
Blake, for me to call a ball in when my partner is closer, I have to be certain it was in. Most times, I do not know, and clipping the outside of the line would be the sort of thing I couldn't see from far away. That seems to be the disconnect you and I are having. It *is* possible to be certain and correct on a good call even if your partner is closer.

I say anyone who says it is always impossible to be certain a baseline ball was in from a position at the net isn't trying hard enough. If such a ball bounces inside the baseline, the net player can sometimes be certain it was in. Being certain it was out is much tougher, because it is hard to exclude the possibility that it caught a bit of the outside line.

I think the Code supports me on this. The Code cautions that players have to be crazy careful about calling balls out when they are in a bad position (looking across a line, far away). But even then, the Code knows it is not impossible for a player in a disadvantageous position to make a line call with certainty and accurately. The Code says any player can call a ball out the player clearly sees as out.

Now, I do not go around calling balls out from a disadvantageous position. That's not cool because you're not giving benefit of the doubt to the opponent, and it's a good way to get into a fight. But if I am certain a ball is in, I will call it in.

As for my partner . . . well, some people are so into the moment that they "wish" a ball out. Some people are just not so hot at calling lines for whatever reason. And some people just . . . well, it's just not in their nature to give the benefit of the doubt like they should, right? Those people must be out there, as people at TW complain about them constantly!

Steady Eddy · Aug 1, 2008

Cindysphinx said:
Me, I ask for the call. Right away. I can't help it. I hate not knowing the score, and I can't mentally prepare for the next point unless I know what happened with the last.

I hate it too. This happens where I play. They don't like to call serves. So I hit a 1st serve that looks out by inches. Silence. I go to the net. Then I'm told, "Serve was out." I believe them but... Okay, this happens alot. Then I hit a 1st serve, just out. I get ready for the 2nd serve, but the ball comes cross court. "Wasn't the serve out?" "Oh, no, that one was good."

BTW, you'll know it's me if you ever play in AZ and some guy announces the score every point whether he's serving or not. It avoids arguments about the score, it keeps my partner into it, and it shows that someone's been paying attention if everyone else forgets the score. Maybe you'd want to try it?

When your partner has the better view but you see it as "in"

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Deleted member 23235

Guest

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 23235

Guest

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads